ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S980

Clinical - Gynaecology

ESTRO 2024

I (substage unspecified) 4 (10)

8 (8)

3 (19)

Histologic grade

0.014

1

9 (22)

40 (42)

2 (23)

2

18 (43)

24 (25)

4 (32)

3

14 (34)

32 (33)

10 (45)

Molecular classification

<0.001

POLEmut

17 (41)

0 (0)

10 (63)

p53abn

3 (7)

26 (27)

0 (0)

NSMP

21 (51)

70 (73)

6 (37)

Surgical approach

0.615

Minimally invasive

17 (41)

38 (40)

4 (25)

Open

22 (54)

55 (57)

12 (75)

Unknown

2 (5)

3 (3)

0 (0)

Surgical outcome

0.848

R0

31 (76)

68 (71)

12 (75)

R1

0 (0)

2 (2)

0 (0)

Unknown

10 (24)

26 (27)

4 (25)

Radiotherapy modality†

<0.001

None

17 (41)

90 (94)

0 (0)

Vaginal brachytherapy

22 (54)

6 (6)

4 (25)

Pelvic external beam radiotherapy

3 (7)

0 (0)

12 (75)

Brackets display standard deviation. Parentheses display percentage.

*Continuous and categorical variables were compared across three groups using ANOVA and 2-test, respectively.

†Percentages do not add to 100% because some patients received both pelvic external beam radiotherapy and vaginal brachytherapy

Conclusion:

RT management of stage I endometrioid EC informed by only traditional clinicopathologic features may lead to suboptimal treatment in a significant fraction of patients. Stage I favorable-histology EC is comprised of subgroups with distinctly worse prognosis, more frequently affecting Black women. Without refined genomic guidance, molecularly aggressive disease can be under-recognized especially if otherwise reassuring clinicopathologic features exist. Improved access to molecular classification may improve racial disparities in patient outcomes.

Keywords: early stage endometrial carcinoma, TCGA